P
PRmerger
Guest
What degree of false teaching is permissible, in your opinion?
- Status
A
ajcstr
Guest
In doing some light research in this it would appear that this topic is up there with the Deutero books. So from an “anti” Peter in Rome argument, would the claim be that all those references by the fathers of the Church are fabricated or changed at a later date, or are those authors appealing to a false tradition?
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
But they were all written in the first century, no Catholic disputes that.
We have more than an “idea” of what they said. We know exactly what they said, and we know what were later additions to the text. We would know they were of first century origin with or without the tradition of your denomination. God preserves his word.
Definitely. That’s why they simply made up that Peter “founded” the church in Rome. And many dispute the claim outright such as Ambrosiaster:
“It is established that there were Jews living in Rome in the times of the apostles, and that those Jews who had believed [in Christ] passed on to the Romans the tradition that they ought to profess Christ but keep the law … One ought not to condemn the Romans, but to praise their faith; because without seeing any signs or miracles and without seeing any apostles, they nevertheless accepted faith in Christ.”
*
I disagree. I don’t think that proximity in geography or time affects anyone’s level of truth. In fact they were as prone to error as anyone else in any century.
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
Defiantly appealing to a false tradition, but not in any malicious way. They weren’t fabricated to changed, they actually did say it. Remember that during this time from the 300s to the 500s, Rome was jostling for power against Constantinople. The pro Roman faction simply played up Rome’s apostolic credentials, even going so far as to claim that old Peter founded the Church of Rome, which is extrabiblical and ahistorical.
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
None. At all.
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
I understand why they wouldn’t approve. Especially since Orthodoxy is tightly associated with national identity.
Do you think it would be easier to gain salvation as a lazy, hardly Catholic, moribund Catholic faith, or a zealous evangelical faith?
P
PRmerger
Guest
There you go.
So that’s why it’s absolutely NOT better to have nominal Catholics be converted to “on fire” anything else.
No degree of false teaching ought to be acceptable.
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
How many lazy, moribund Catholics are acceptable?
Do you think its easier for a lazy, nominal, hardly Catholic, to make it to salvation or a zealous evangelical?
P
PRmerger
Guest
None.
Were you operating under the misapprehension that anyone has been advocating this?
That is above my paygrade, HH.
And it’s above yours.
We have no idea about the salvation of anyone, save for when the Church has declared a matter definitively.
I will say that outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation, so if the zealous evangelical is saved, it’s because of the CC, And if the moribund, lazy Catholic is saved, it’s because of the CC.
So having a non-Catholic missionary convert someone from the Catholic Church would be counter productive.
S
spina1953
Guest
I think that whether one is Catholic or Protestant Christian there are those who do not practice what they believe and are lazy or indifferent about their faith. As for salvation that is up to God to decide who is saved and who is not. The Catholic Church gives the means whereby one might gain one’s salvation, but it never assured as it is up to the individual to work out the salvation with God’s help.
P
PRmerger
Guest
This calls to mind Apollos in the NT.
You see that he was full of vigor and zeal, but in need of some instruction by Priscilla and Aquila.
The Church did not leave Apollos to his inaccuracies, despite the fact that he was “on fire” for the Lord.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Seems a bit of a loaded question. I’m not speaking against Evangelicals, only against their proselytizing. (By the same logic I could ask “Is it better to be a lazy, hardly Orthodox, moribund Orthodox, or a zealous Catholic?”)
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
If the missionary were responsible, rational, and actually cared for the souls of the hardly Catholics, he or she would not seek to try to convert them to their own doctrinal viewpoint but rather, that he or she meet with the local presbyter or bishop and discuss with him that his flock is moribund, lazy, and barely Catholic, and that the cleric should address it. They should not, as Peter said, be sheep stealers.
P
Peter_J
Guest
At least not if they have a high opinion of the “other side”. (Speaking as a Catholic, when faced with the question of how to approach potential-Catholics, it depends in part on what they would be potentially converting from.)
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
Jah, and it tends to be true that missionaries to areas dominated by a Catholic populace generally don’t view Catholics as Christians. At least, not the majority of Catholics. Which also means that even if the local Catholics are zealous for Christ, are not lazy or moribund, the missionaries will still try to convert them to whatever brand of evangelicalism they adhere to.
B
benhur
Guest
You got me laughing (thanks i needed it).
B
benhur
Guest
Good rebuttal. Language, a gift from God, not too mention humor. Thanks
B
benhur
Guest
Your either or option deflects reflection on HH’s point, that Truth can set one on fire.
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
Don’t Catholic apologists and missionaries actively try to convert others to their doctrinal viewpoint?
B
boomerang
Guest
Definitely. That’s why they simply made up that Peter “founded” the church in Rome.
All of them just “made it up” eh? Why, those evil, lying sacks of s**t! I guess you just can’t trust those early church fathers!
And many dispute the claim outright such as Ambrosiaster:
*
“It is established that there were Jews living in Rome in the times of the apostles, and that those Jews who had believed [in Christ] passed on to the Romans the tradition that they ought to profess Christ but keep the law … One ought not to condemn the Romans, but to praise their faith; because without seeing any signs or miracles and without seeing any apostles, they nevertheless accepted faith in Christ (although according to a Jewish rite).” -* added the rest of the sentence from Wikipedia. I couldn’t find any other source.**
**You find fault with my quoting early church fathers, so then what do you do? You quote an early church father! Don’t you know they make stuff up?
I had never heard of Ambrosiaster before. From what I can tell, he seems to be very obscure. But the above quote doesn’t rule out Peter founding “the Church”. I don’t think anyone claims that Peter, or Paul, were the very first followers of Christ to walk the streets of Rome. What they say is that both of them founded “the Church”, which is an organized community of believers. What you see from the above quote is that these were Jewish followers of Jesus that still practiced the Jewish rites, so this is very early. There’s no mentioning of any organization or hierarchy. **
I disagree. I don’t think that proximity in geography or time affects anyone’s level of truth. In fact they were as prone to error as anyone else in any century.
**Catholics believe Peter (and Paul) founded our Church. They were both martyred there. We have their bones in St. Peter’s Basilica and St. Paul Outside the Walls. We have early church fathers agreeing with this. As far as I know, there is no ancient testimony that specifically disputes that Peter founded the Church in Rome. You are an ex-Catholic. I can see why you do not want to believe this. That is your prerogative. **
- Status